Ms. Ainslie has never reproduced her own claims.  Nor has anyone else.  Greg East seems keen to support her claims.  He could always attempt to reproduce any of them.

(snip)

He has tried to reproduce her claims. Of course he rejected the 5-mosfet circuit out of hand, being implausible on the face of it. But remember what happened when he built the original Quantum Magazine circuit.... he found it didn't work as claimed! And on June 29, 2012, he actually has to ask if anyone has actually built the circuit! How's that for doing one's homework? I still ROFL about that one!

GMeast is unwilling to share the raw data, the circuit or the procedure by which he attained his "300 percent" results, and of course we know all about Err-on Murakami's fiddling and diddling about and why he is no longer part of Ainslie's mob of incompetent sycophants.

On the other hand every bit of my work on this topic is fully public, with all details necessary for anyone to repeat it, refute it, replicate it, whatever they might like to do with it. Raw data, procedures, circuits, methodology, analyses and final results are all there in my YT videos and forum posts, all of it is available to be challenged or discussed.  When GMeast is willing to present his "300 percent" data with this kind of detail and openness... and someone else can repeat it and show it to be a valid result.... then, and only then, should he be making his claims of "overunity performance".

That's a nice design, thank you for drawing it up.

It is also possible to use the identical 555 circuit that is in the Quantum Magazine article. The Secret of DPDT makes this possible, as I showed in a video. The only requirement is that the timer circuit is powered by its own battery, as specified in the article.

On the Secret of DPDT: It must be a secret of the most secret kind, since I've encountered several projects that would have been a lot easier had they used such a switch. The Steorn Waterways Demo was a great example. When they wanted to show that reversing the polarity of their coils didn't affect the functioning of their Orbo pulse motors, they spent 5 minutes with a screwdriver to swap the coil connections and then another 5 minutes swapping them back, and of course the motor had to be stopped while doing this. The Secret of DPDT was revealed to the lads by me in a video at that time. More applications have followed, such as the rather unorthodox but quite viable and easy application of the Secret to the Ainslie Q17 circuit.

But just for completeness, I'll cobble together an instantiation of your dual-555, or 556, circuit and have it available for testing alongside the Q17, FTC, GreyBox and other 555 circuits I've used to clock the basic mosfet switch.


Speaking of testing, does anyone know of any complete and _valid_ data set, anywhere, that includes a correct and complete schematic, the operating parameters, a waveform shot or two, and temperature/time data for the load heating, that shows any of Ainslie's (or even GMeast's) claimed OU heat effects? COP >17, COP INFINITY, COP 3, 300 percent OU, twice, or a teeny bit OU .... whatever? I don't think I've ever actually seen any comprehensive heat data that connects all the dots, except in my own work from 2009/2010 and the past few weeks.

Thanks, Poynt99, for providing that, along with your annotations.

Interesting. I am "assuming" that the color/channel assignments are the same as Ainsile typically uses:
Yellow: voltage drop across the CVR ( which? The "noninductive" arrangement on the demo board?) This channel is displayed at 1.19 Volts per division !! Aren't Digital Scopes wonderful! You can set them to make the traces as difficult to read as possible!
This is clearly obfuscatory. It is impossible to read the actual level of the Current from this trace, and even the Numbers In Boxes are useless, displaying the "mean mean" and the max and min "mean" or average values of this trace.
Blue: Gate signal from FG (or 555 or other source?) at 50 volts per division! Got something to HIDE, Ainslie?
Purple: Vbatt (from where? the noninductive battery connection shown in August, or at the board itself?) and at 100 V/div to capture the peaks.... and only the peaks are displayed in the parameters box, not the much more useful _average_ or true minimums and maximums. It's not even possible to tell how many batteries were used. The peak current of just under 2 amps would seem to indicate that only two batteries were used but since the mosfet is still in its linear operation region, not turning fully on, perhaps 3 batteries were used and the circuit resistance is just higher than normal.

Red: Math trace making the spurious calculation and displayed at 500 v/div. Useless. But it shows negative values! Miracle of Mismeasurement!

I note that the scope's timebase is set to 1 microsecond per division and that the operating frequency is about 187.2 kHz, as confirmed by the numbers in boxes. The Gate drive duty cycle appears to be about 25 or 30 percent HI. The mosfet itself is not fast enough to properly turn fully on and off at this frequency so it's not showing that much real "ON" time itself.

So once again we have a garbage scopeshot. The Current trace displayed at 1.19 V/Div, with "max and min means" displayed !! The Math is showing a spurious value due to the attempts at integrating the spikes.... from non-deskewed probes, most probably, without any filtration. The Gate trace is displayed at 50 v/division so that the total displayed amplitude is less than one full division -- not very informative. The math trace at 500 V/div is just silly. This is done to get the spurious peaks to stay on the screen. Good luck getting proper Math values if any portion of the trace is offscreen vertically.

So once again we have a scope screen that is more obfuscatory than informative, and the information that is actually needed must be extracted painfully by interpreting trace positions with odd scale values, rather than by using cursors or properly obtained parameter measurements.

I also note that the Gate drive signal is the triggering channel and the trigger is set to -24.0 V !! The Blue Gate drive signal is set to 50 Volts/division ! The Gate signal appears to swing about 20 volts p-p and has the extreme negative offset that her FG is capable of.  Curiously.... the gate signal risetime is a bit under 400 nanoseconds. This seems very slow to me for a "square" wave pulse. I can attain 10 ns or better risetimes at that frequency. Is Ainslie using the triangle ramp setting again, as she has tried to use before?

Will someone PLEASE teach these people how properly to display INFORMATION on an oscilloscope? I declare: You get more real and usable and valid information from my ANALOG SCOPES and my narrations, than you do from Ainslie's Etch-a-Sketch LeCroy abuse.

On the Secret of DPDT: It must be a secret of the most secret kind, since I've encountered several projects that would have been a lot easier had they used such a switch. The Steorn Waterways Demo was a great example. When they wanted to show that reversing the polarity of their coils didn't affect the functioning of their Orbo pulse motors, they spent 5 minutes with a screwdriver to swap the coil connections and then another 5 minutes swapping them back, and of course the motor had to be stopped while doing this. The Secret of DPDT was revealed to the lads by me in a video at that time. More applications have followed, such as the rather unorthodox but quite viable and easy application of the Secret to the Ainslie Q17 circuit.

But just for completeness, I'll cobble together an instantiation of your dual-555, or 556, circuit and have it available for testing alongside the Q17, FTC, GreyBox and other 555 circuits I've used to clock the basic mosfet switch.


Speaking of testing, does anyone know of any complete and _valid_ data set, anywhere, that includes a correct and complete schematic, the operating parameters, a waveform shot or two, and temperature/time data for the load heating, that shows any of Ainslie's (or even GMeast's) claimed OU heat effects? COP >17, COP INFINITY, COP 3, 300 percent OU, twice, or a teeny bit OU .... whatever? I don't think I've ever actually seen any comprehensive heat data that connects all the dots, except in my own work from 2009/2010 and the past few weeks.

I see.  Steorn were such goofballs that it didn't dawn on them to use a simple two pole toggle switch or a switch and a relay.  What dopes.

I started a thread that discussed Greg's tests and where I think he should go next.  He didn't think much of my suggestions.  It's too bad, because he really does seem like he is trying to set up decently controlled experiments.  I am unaware of anything better from Ms. Ainslie than the tests last summer.

Thanks, Poynt99, for providing that, along with your annotations.

Interesting. I am "assuming" that the color/channel assignments are the same as Ainsile typically uses:
Yellow: voltage drop across the CVR ( which? The "noninductive" arrangement on the demo board?) This channel is displayed at 1.19 Volts per division !! Aren't Digital Scopes wonderful! You can set them to make the traces as difficult to read as possible!
This is clearly obfuscatory. It is impossible to read the actual level of the Current from this trace, and even the Numbers In Boxes are useless, displaying the "mean mean" and the max and min "mean" or average values of this trace.
Blue: Gate signal from FG (or 555 or other source?) at 50 volts per division! Got something to HIDE, Ainslie?
Purple: Vbatt (from where? the noninductive battery connection shown in August, or at the board itself?) and at 100 V/div to capture the peaks.... and only the peaks are displayed in the parameters box, not the much more useful _average_ or true minimums and maximums. It's not even possible to tell how many batteries were used. The peak current of just under 2 amps would seem to indicate that only two batteries were used but since the mosfet is still in its linear operation region, not turning fully on, perhaps 3 batteries were used and the circuit resistance is just higher than normal.

Red: Math trace making the spurious calculation and displayed at 500 v/div. Useless. But it shows negative values! Miracle of Mismeasurement!

I note that the scope's timebase is set to 1 microsecond per division and that the operating frequency is about 187.2 kHz, as confirmed by the numbers in boxes. The Gate drive duty cycle appears to be about 25 or 30 percent HI. The mosfet itself is not fast enough to properly turn fully on and off at this frequency so it's not showing that much real "ON" time itself.

So once again we have a garbage scopeshot. The Current trace displayed at 1.19 V/Div, with "max and min means" displayed !! The Math is showing a spurious value due to the attempts at integrating the spikes.... from non-deskewed probes, most probably, without any filtration. The Gate trace is displayed at 50 v/division so that the total displayed amplitude is less than one full division -- not very informative. The math trace at 500 V/div is just silly. This is done to get the spurious peaks to stay on the screen. Good luck getting proper Math values if any portion of the trace is offscreen vertically.

So once again we have a scope screen that is more obfuscatory than informative, and the information that is actually needed must be extracted painfully by interpreting trace positions with odd scale values, rather than by using cursors or properly obtained parameter measurements.

I also note that the Gate drive signal is the triggering channel and the trigger is set to -24.0 V !! The Blue Gate drive signal is set to 50 Volts/division ! The Gate signal appears to swing about 20 volts p-p and has the extreme negative offset that her FG is capable of.  Curiously.... the gate signal risetime is a bit under 400 nanoseconds. This seems very slow to me for a "square" wave pulse. I can attain 10 ns or better risetimes at that frequency. Is Ainslie using the triangle ramp setting again, as she has tried to use before?

Will someone PLEASE teach these people how properly to display INFORMATION on an oscilloscope? I declare: You get more real and usable and valid information from my ANALOG SCOPES and my narrations, than you do from Ainslie's Etch-a-Sketch LeCroy abuse.

The battery voltage and current traces look like they are still taken across large inductances.

   Ah!
       

Isn't it hilarious? Ainslie cannot understand the basic process of _calibration_.

When a DSO and a DMM give the SAME VALUES for a certain measurement.... as I have repeatedly shown over and over, with strong underpinnings from Poynt99 and Steve Weir, as well as plenty of empirical proof..... she doesn't seem to understand that this means that the DMM is JUST AS ACCURATE as the oscilloscope. She rejects the DMM reading but accepts the scope reading when _both values are the same_ within some small, actually quantified error range. It is to laugh! The woman is severely challenged (and severely deficient) when it comes to using the thinking function of that wrinkled Little Brian... er, I mean "brain"... of hers.